Stuff and nonsense

‘One can’t have a sensible discussion about morals, ethics, laws, responsibility, human rights, with people who live by the bible.’  So sez roughseas. Sneaky.

Image result for beam me up scottie

https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/love-as-a-game-lurking-in-manosphere/#comment-25189

Hmm. Here we see an extreme example of mental myopia, dismissing thousands of years of ‘sensible discussions’ regarding morals, ethics, laws, and responsibility with the stroke of a pen.  Man oh man, do the libraries of the world laugh at such shallowness.

Does any body have the guts to say how truly pitiful this comment is?

No sensible discussion. You going with that?

No sensible discussions? Please. When Solomon stated his ‘cut the baby in half’ to find out the true mother, was this not sensible? Was his question not one of morals and ethics? Did he not seek out who was responsible for posing as the bastard mother and thief? Did he not have wisdom above all others? Did not his fine question get to the root in one minute or less?

And while there may be today appeals, endless delays, years and years and trial after trial to ascertain the ‘real mother,’ wasting valuable time and resources, Solomon in his not so politically correct voice said: ‘cut the baby in half………..’ not because he was a monster, but because he used the wisdom of God to cut through the garbage, and get to the point.

Would to God we used such common sense in our dealings with our fellows. No, nothing to learn here about jurisprudence and the raping of the court systems. No sensible discussion to be had. Oh how we should be so jealous of such wisdom, given freely by God. Cut the baby in half!

But no, there can be no ‘sensible discussion’ about morals or laws with people who live best as possible according to the scriptures,  and of course she means, that the scriptures can not hold a candle to the intellect and laws of man. Please.

Without scripture, there would be chaos in the world. Wait, there is chaos in the world, as ‘evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.’ Another sensible discussion to be had, but of course, without absolutes,  evil does not exist, and nothing is getting worse and worse….

It is understandable how one could think there could be no valuable discussion if one holds to the truth of scripture, for people who do not have a standard of right and wrong will always be at a disadvantage. Did God create man and woman? Is there not a sensible discussion to be had when I ask you to consider the words man and woMAN?

Or does it perhaps reveal senselessness by avoiding the blazing truth that woMAN was made from man? But no, no ‘sensible’ discussion here, as it is rather inconvenient to face.

Is it not part of a sensible discussion to include the truth that things made require a maker? Science 101. Carpenters need wood to make a table. Squirrels need trees. And the seed of the tree is in itself. But yep, no ‘sensible discussion’ with they who take the word of God seriously.

But to the poster, a ‘sensible discussion’ simply means God is not, was not, and never will be. Uh, yea, go ahead and declare that the carpenters table created itself, or that a whirlwind buzzed through a junkyard and out popped a Boeing 747, ready for flight. Yeah, uh huh, sure, a sensible discussion.

-A good name is more valuable than rubies.  I suppose no sensible discussion can be had about wealth versus character and principle.

-A wise son maketh a glad father. No sensible discussion can be enjoyed regarding a son who makes good decisions based upon what is pure, just, and good. Nothing to be discussed regarding working with ones hands, or seeking a spouse of mettle.

-Consider the ant thou sluggard. Yep, no discussion regarding the welfare state, laziness, and a solid work ethic.

-The entrance of thy word giveth light. No discussion of worth regarding he who gave up the bottle, drugs, or abuse, to live for a cause. Or simply that an old woman enjoys her faith, never tasting liquor, being happy in her contentment of having very little, as she recognizes day from night.

Yep, no sensible discussion to be had with they who believe the scriptures. But me? I’ll also take the daylight of the word of God 24/7 which presents God as ever God, and by whom all things consist.

Keep your endless speculations and arguments from a mind stayed apart from the Creator. I’ll take the proven, verifiable, and reliable word of God which is forever settled in heaven. But time would fail and paper would be short in documenting the influence of the laws of God over the earth, and how men have used and abused laws, and how governments were formed upon good law.

Visit the State Capitol buildings in America, and see the paintings and influence of Moses and law. Laws are good if used lawfully, but yep, no sensible discussion with people who understand history and the God of history. Please.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Stuff and nonsense

  1. I am somewhat baffled by that statement, too. Actually, one can’t even discuss laws or morals with one who rejects the bible outright, because to do so is also to reject history, to deny the influence the bible has had on forming those laws. I’m reminded of “thou shall not kill,” at the time of the KJV, murder wasn’t really a thing, it was indistinguishable. A king could not murder anyone, because he was free to kill anyone he chose. The original word however, was more akin to our modern definition of “murder.” So the rule of law, English common law,morality, is all elaborately entwined within the bible. Today murder is not defined by who you are, but rather by what you have done to another.

    This kind of secular thinking is a bit scary to me, because what is the why of “thou shall not murder?” A recognition that we are all created in the image of God. The alternative is that we are all just a meaningless clump of cells, in which case, the act of “killing” suddenly looses all context, with rather obvious and tragic results.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      —–Today murder is not defined by who you are, but rather by what you have done to another.—–

      Love this. Like it or not, and much to the dismay of others, law is courtesy of a Creator in general and fortunately it gets better:

      In particular, He has supplied the conscience to obey or disobey. And still better yet: a heart that loves his neighbor as himself……need not be reminded it is wrong to steal his neighbors cow.

      Appreciate your context ms bytes; tkx for sending it!

      Like

  2. Wally Fry says:

    Ha. I wasn’t called out by name, but pretty sure I am in the “usual suspects” category she mentioned.

    I am pretty sure sensible discussion to some people means nothing more than a willingness to be mocked, harassed, and insulted. Apparently, when one refuses to do that, we are no longer sensible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yeah, Wally, have ya heard about the joke circulating that suggests the apostle Paul, that stellar minded disciple who unfolded law and grace unlike no other, per the unction of the Lord Christ, was somehow delusional and guilty of some monstrous ‘shaking seizure……………’ oh what lengths the accusers of the brethren travel to paint day as night.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wally Fry says:

        I have heard that joke. Not that funny eh? Although being in Paul’s company is quite an honor.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          I use that word ‘joke’ half heartedly W, for the implication is pure nonsense that Paul was any thing less than what scripture says of him.

          And I recall him saying he was chief of sinners, which was no exaggerated claim, thus cementing his credibility.

          I truly pity people who fault a good man. In his company though? I’m afraid I may have to watch from a distance…

          He was great man for he knew intimately One greater.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well, I dunno. Aren’t we all pretty chief sinners? In that way, we are all in his company. Sure, God had a very special mission for him, but He has that for us all. Paul was just very willing. Maybe all the separates us all from Paul is how willing we are. How many of us never know, because we never…go?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yep key word there bro. ‘willing.’ I’m certain there is a great distance there; as some have left all, while some keep all.

          Still your point is true. Just seems our friend Paul was quite the man of God. Ever read his epistles…………? 😉 lol

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Seems I heard he wrote a thing or two 🙂

          Loved that route about some leaving all and some keeping all. Very nice and sums up the choice we all make very well

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You know, we can enjoy what we take for granted, but there are actually people with scriptures in hand who never read the works of Paul…………..meanwhile the Lord Himself said: ‘I have many things to say unto you………..and you cannot bear them now………………’

          I’ll say, and of course the works of Paul are part and parcel of the ‘many things.’

          Thank God eh.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Yeah..some believers don’t even like him much.But, I suppose that is another subject altogether. Pick and choose you know. If we don’t like it, we don’t pick it. But, last time I checked, somebody said…”all scripture is God breathed”

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          YYep…………….

          —And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.—

          Yep, that breathing thing is kind of important.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Wally Fry says:

          Seems to be a recurring theme!

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Tricia says:

    “One can’t have a conversation with those that”….. believe in the Bible, are conservative in their politics, are pro gun, are not for gay marriage, are skeptical about man made global warming….take your pick of traits, it’s all a way of shutting down debate by invalidating the other person as not even worthy of having a conversation with.

    It’s a very limited way of thinking and really shrinks a persons world down but many choose to dwell there for whatever reasons.

    Love your title, Stuff and Nonsense by the way. That’s always been a favorite phrase of mine.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. theancients says:

    ‘One can’t have a sensible discussion about morals, ethics, laws, responsibility, human rights, with people who live by the bible.’ – roughseas

    What’s more pitiful than that vacuous, bankrupt statement is the fact Ms. roughseas admits to having never read the Bible.

    Living by the Bible:
    Skilled living gets its start in the Fear-of-God, insight into life from knowing a Holy God.
    It’s through me, Lady Wisdom, that your life deepens, and the years of your life ripen. Live wisely and wisdom will permeate your life; mock life and life will mock you.

    Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Something I find interesting about Paul’s alleged and false temporal lobe issues, back when he was the chief sinner, the world didn’t see anything wrong with him, he was “sane.” Our Lord too, was once accused of having a demon. The world has not changed much at all, today one can be out competing for the title of chief sinner and that is perceived as sane, rational, but accept Jesus Christ, start making positive changes in your life, and suddenly you’re touched, crazy, there’s something wrong with you. Misery always seeks it’s own company.

    We don’t speak of that much in the western world, but scripture tells us over and over again, “ye shall be hated of all men,” “the wicked detest the upright,” “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      I love how these posts and comments cross paths and confirm the pure truth of God, as iron sharpens iron.

      Tkx for pointing out the ‘alleged’ and ‘false’ lobe issues……….a claim so bizarre that it cannot be taken seriously by anybody with decent reading skills.

      Stuff and nonsense I tell ya!

      And, the idea that Paul was a ‘sane’ man………..UNTIL he met the Lord……….and that he was sane WHEN he stood idly at the stoning of Stephen!

      All of a sudden his sanity is questioned because of a greater allegiance! Please.

      Your last line………..yeah, like that never happens…………..God bless ya ms bytes as you testify to the goodness of God.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Laws are always a reflection of the Law-giver! I was stunned when the U.S. Congress was unable to pass a 20 week abortion ban. What does that say about our lawgivers? Thank you for your post and your willingness to stand against the dismissal of thousands of years of moral precedent.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Oh very well, here you go.

    1) Don’t preach history at me. Unless you have a similar degree in Ancient and Medieval History and Archaeology.

    2) Your whole post immediately launches into biblical rhetoric. That was my point. You can’t have a conversation without resorting to your bible.

    3) Visit the State Capitol buildings in Merica? Why on earth would I do that? Go visit the Vatican. Irrelevant. Just irrelevant.

    Now, have a discussion about morals, ethics, human rights without invoking your fictitious deity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      Tks roughseas for the visit.

      You did me one better by mentioning the Vatican, tkx.

      So I suppose that the Pieta or Michelangelo’s David are to be summarily dismissed because of a ‘religious’ affiliation………..no conversation to be had eh?

      No relevance to history?

      So the visitors to Rome are all nitwits when they are told the history of a young man who became king of Israel? And who is it exactly that amends history with a rather large eraser?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Art, achitecture, sculpture and music don’t confirm scripture. Merely mimic the ruling ideology of the time. Wonderful works of art without a doubt. We all have our price wnen we need to work.

        Liked by 2 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sez roughseas

          –Art, achitecture, sculpture and music don’t confirm scripture.–

          Sez CS

          Stuff and nonsense. Yeah, when was the last time a two handed hyena painted a work worthy of Picasso?

          What pray tell, Seas, separates the critter from the human, and who are you to decide who is more creative?

          Who is more worthy of an epitaph or a decent burial? Why?

          And do tell that the temple of Solomon does not confirm scripture, but that would be lying now wouldn’t it…

          It’s all about the image…

          Like

    • “Now, have a discussion about morals, ethics, human rights without invoking your fictitious deity.”

      If I may Roughseas, one approach with hardline biblical Fundamentalist is to simply ask them to render compelling evidence of their canonical New Testament’s overall validity and reliability ONLY FROM non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Early Church Fathers corroborating sources…that might be (plausibly are?) slanted (heavily?) to Emperor Constantine and his close bishops. I have found those discussions to be quite revealing. It has been my years of seminary and experience that unless there become NEW archaelogical discoveries of strictly Roman, or Arabian, or any non-Early Christian (non-Yeshua) groups/scribes in the Levant between 10 BCE and 60 CE… everything Christian apologists use are strictly Christian, Judeo-Christian, and much Roman-Constantine influenced. Very biased by most scholar’s standards today.

      But as I know you can do just fine by yourself without my help, I leave it up to you my Friend. 🙂

      P.S. I reserve the right to be very busy in life and not reply to anyone quickly or within a month or two. Peace to all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Um. Do you speak English?

        Liked by 2 people

      • theancients says:

        🙂 what qualifies as compelling evidence to you…

        and why the bias towards ONLY non-Christian sources… that’s not very intellectual.

        why is it that when you go to the physician you do not ask him to refrain from using his medical knowledge gained from medical texts in order to treat you [ that’s very biased!… a book on geography or one written by an archaeologist should have equally valid medical information… right]

        Liked by 2 people

        • @ theancients —

          Hello theancients. Thought I’d hop over to your blog but alas, no way to learn anything about WHO I’m dialoguing with. 😦 I prefer that because it respects everyone’s valuable time as well as acknowledges some basic common courtesies. Oh well.

          “what qualifies as compelling evidence to you…”

          Ahh, answer questions with further questions. Can cause unnecessary diversion, deflection, while on the hampster wheel. 😛 I would LIKE not to get way off topic (i.e. what I suggested to Roughseas above), let’s out sigh… I’ll indulge you though, for a bit.

          That’s an innocent and fair question. The question does imply the relative subjectivity of every single human brain, every single human experience, every single complex human perception. Valid. I do like and agree with that implication, for all. Not on a global philosophical or theological standard necessarily, but valid when ONE human must pick and choose between self(ego) and/or the or a greater good beyond self. Therefore, to answer your question more directly, sometimes (more often?) a collective counsel can offer large degrees of truth, especially when the counsel is very very diverse. Plus, that allows outsiders, listeners, students, neutrals the God-given freedom & independence to decide for themselves WHAT is truthy enough for them. With that said, it should be self-evident within a degree of human corroboration to find these intrinsic natural truths amongst a diverse variety of intellectuals. For further clarification, “amongst a diverse variety of humble, stoic, respectful, articulate intellectuals/scholars.” Quite like those awarded Nobel Prizes for instance. Therefore, it does stand to reason (IMO) the more diverse, more collective evidence toward specific conclusions, the better, the more valid the “compelling evidence.” This leads me to your next question and somewhat fluffy personal comment after…

          “and why the bias towards ONLY non-Christian sources… that’s not very intellectual.”

          Bias is a very interesting word YOU chose there. 😉 But in all honesty to that, in my 3-years of Reformed Theological Seminary and subsequent service at my PCA and USPCA churches and ministries… since the Holy Scriptures have been “canonized” since 325 CE, that makes the “list” of non-Christian, non-Judeo-Christian, and pro-Constantine & his bishops sources all the same and unchanged for 1,691 years. In our apologetics courses we had to use repeatedly those Christian, Jewish, and pro-Constantine pro-Roman sources for the veracity of the New Testament. If one cannot use ALL available sources relevant including any and all NON-Christian, NON-Jewish, NON-Constantinian, then that would indeed be bias on the part of Christian apologists. Right there… is why I presented my questions to Roughseas. In order to make a very informed, wise, logical, even heartfelt (spirited?) decision on the validity of Christianity and her New Testament claims… I would want to hear, read, listen TO ALL AVAILABLE resources about the time, the context, the events, and the news headlines (from a variety of sources) if you will, of the issue at hand! When you have a diverse approach and extrapolations, THAT is compelling to me and less biased, possibly UNbiased.

          Which now flows into your later analogy. 🙂

          May I use your approach please to questions by asking you another question? May I use a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, even a 10th medical opinion from doctors… or geographers, or archeologists from a variety but related fields to make my informed assessment?

          Best regards to you Sir.

          Liked by 1 person

        • theancients says:

          @ Professor Taboo,

          Thanks for your detailed response. I feel I must now apologize for the simplicity and brevity of mine 🙂

          The wisest of teachers asked questions of His questioners – to determine intent, assumptions made, etc. Think of me as a disciple in training.

          Your question basically is: “how reliable is the New Testament.”

          Answer: very reliable because the same standard of judgment was employed as with any other historical documents.

          What constitutes reliability: historical accuracy, truthfulness & accuracy in copying.

          I imagine you’re now out of seminary & therefore free to use all additional & available sources that were previously prohibited from you.

          Very biased was first used by you in describing the reaction of “most scholars”… which is quiet interesting.
          Who are these “most scholars” and what are their standards of measure… What’s the difference in standards then as opposed to now.

          You are free to use as many medical opinions as you wish… as long as you maintain the standard of asking each physician to treat you without deferring to their medical knowledge & texts.
          In this process of dr. shopping, you will eventually find one who will acquiesce to your demands. But you must now ask yourself, just how reliable is the diagnosis and proposed method of treatment.

          Best regards to you as well Sir.

          Liked by 2 people

        • @ theancients —

          “Thanks for your detailed response. I feel I must now apologize for the simplicity and brevity of mine :)”,

          No apology necessary theancients, but I do appreciate your courtesy. Thank you.

          “I imagine you’re now out of seminary & therefore free to use all additional & available sources that were previously prohibited from you.”

          Thank you for your respectful acknowledgement of my post-grad education and church-ministry experiences. As CS audaciously presumed above, my background in Xian-ministries and seminary education/experience was a combined 8-years, not three. Not sure why CS chose not to ask first. Those 8-years are not really the important discussion here; my words, questions, statements, and naturally my studies and human experience shared today and yesterday carry only the amount of credentials as anyone here cares to give them.

          The truth of the matter CS, yourself theancients, and others here (Roughseas being the exception), is that none of you know anything at all about my background OR my past Christian convictions/faith/works while in seminary, followed by time out Serving (as a vessel) full-time. Prejudging my past is really not anyone’s purpose and once again turns this dialogue into digressive cymbal-bashing. Aside from such fruitless approaches, proving my personal credentials & background would likely take more time than many here care to read or invest, honestly myself included. 😛 Therefore, I feel the best course of action in discussing such topics (as hyper-sensitive as these can become) should be approached with mutual tact, respect, and appropriate kindness first, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY getting to know each other as simple equal human beings — or in another language… as a member of God’s creations(?). So in that light, my validity in these discussions can and should be measured only by what I write here; nothing more, nothing less. I think that is fair… for all sides. Thank you theancients for your efforts toward that. 🙂

          “Very biased was first used by you in describing the reaction of “most scholars”.. which is quiet interesting.
          Who are these “most scholars” and what are their standards of measure… What’s the difference in standards then as opposed to now.”

          A fair notation theancients. Yes, I did use “very biased” in the sentence everything Christian apologists use are strictly Christian, Judeo-Christian, and much Roman-Constantine influenced. Very biased by most scholar’s standards today.

          I was inferring that a neutral spectator wanting to verify the veracity of uncommon claims, teachings, & the accurate documenting of events in 1st century Judea, Galilee, Jerusalem, etc, might/should consider carefully ALL sources. Many of us today do or should do the same thing when listening to a total stranger, a news broadcast, a public speaker, or a book. I have used this process my entire adult life including years prior to my conversion to the Christian faith in 1983. This character trait was indeed discouraged by ministers, my seminary professors, and specifically presented Bible passages (and exegesis of those passages) all during my 8-years of “milk to meat” Scriptural education and service throughout. I made myself a kid (Matthew 18:1-6) for teaching & molding, however, I was also given (by God?) an intellect. As such we should not be committing intellectual suicide either by simply asking questions, even many questions, and searching deligently earnestly inside Canonical Scripture for answers! Correct?

          But therein lies the meaning of Canonical. Eventually in my persistence, diligence, and earnest searching for EVERYTHING in Scripture, a Follower-Believer inevitably in unheard by that God. In other words, canonical Scripture is amputated and does not provide sufficient evidence or answers to stand up to thorough scrutiny, science, and logic. One GLARING EXAMPLE is the whereabouts of Yeshua from age 13 to 29. Those years are beyond critical, beyond paramount causing a plethora of consequential questions and problems! That’s just one glaring “miss” mind you. What follows is a collapsing house of cards due to the very nature of being Canonical. :/

          “You are free to use as many medical opinions as you wish… as long as you maintain the standard of asking each physician to treat you without deferring to their medical knowledge & texts.”

          Thank you theancients. I have been using the polling-method since at least 1991 if not before. Regarding the continued “Standard of Asking each physician“… there’s really no choice for more comprehensive increased truth. Under the Canonical system those options are closed; have been since 325 CE. But all thanks to “More Truth”, archaeological and philological (to name just two fields) discoveries and studies, the world is increasingly getting a more accurate picture, context, & understanding of what took place in Judea, Galilee, Jerusalem, and the rest of the Levant between 10 BCE and 325 CE. It is very exciting! 🙂

          This begs the question then… if Christian apologists do not reference or corroborate the non-Christian, non-Jewish, and anti-Constantinian sources, texts, and evidence to validate or invalidate the New Testament veracity, what does that silence or apathy say to neutrals out there? In my intense 8-years, especially the final year, that bothered me DEEPLY. Out of pure integrity and avoidance of (my?) hypocricy… I had to examine it all under a different microscope.

          <

          blockquote>”In this process of dr. shopping, you will eventually find one who will acquiesce to your demands. But you must now ask yourself, just how reliable is the diagnosis and proposed method of treatment.”

          <

          blockquote>

          I wouldn’t say “my demands” in the purest form of your question. I would rather say, “based upon what my body and all its working or struggling parts…indicate to the Doctor what is needed based upon COLLECTIVE medical experience over the ages.” Case and point? Look at the modern advances in medicine, surgery, treatments, rehab, equipment, et al, possible because of COLLECTIVE sharing and progressed wisdom! But to your point, since 1991 (more like 1989) I’ve done and continue to do the homework. Always will.

          I return the regards again to you theancients. Thank you Sir and peace for all.

          COLORSTORM SEZ: The scriptures say clearly: ‘By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple.’ 3 years, 8 years, 20 years of seminary unseats God from His creation? Please. Higher education in biblical matters that chastises God’s word are ‘profane and vain babblings.’ Sorry, this smokescreen deserves no respect, as it is ‘stuff and nonsense.’

          One may as well say the devil presents scripture in context. Uh, no.

          Liked by 2 people

        • theancients says:

          @ Professor Taboo,

          As mentioned to roughseasmed I believe we’re in agreement that all legitimate sources should be encouraged and given equal consideration. [Reality dictates this is not the issue – it all comes down to the conclusions drawn and the conclusions one gravitate towards; whether based upon the preponderance of the evidence or philosophical biases etc.]

          I’ve never been to seminary, but as an institution of higher learning, I imagine they did a disservice by disallowing access to equal legitimate sources (ie. sources that utilize the same evidences & same standards of verification)

          PT: As such we should not be … searching diligently earnestly inside Canonical Scripture for answers! Correct?

          I defer to my Lord here: You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want.

          You’ve probably preached this yourself, so feel free to ignore the short sermon: He’s looking to know you…the way one knows their spouse… intimately… Relationship with Him trumps everything else. [sermon over: Amen]

          Do you honestly believe knowing the details of Jesus’ whereabouts in His early years will change the NT narrative.

          Will it change who Jesus is and your relationship with Him… Would it change His ultimate mission.

          if Christian apologists do not reference or corroborate the non-Christian… sources, texts, and evidence to validate or invalidate the New Testament veracity, what does that silence or apathy say to neutrals out there?

          It says: you’ve assumed they’ve never referenced nor corroborated the other sources…
          I believe you already know this: the other sources say very little in comparison to Christian/Jewish sources. So it seems only logical that one would stick with the main sources that encompass corroborating sources.

          Thanks for taking the time & Best wishes.

          Like

        • @ theancients —

          I’ve just noticed your comment-reply here as I was drafting another comment for CS. If I’m not banned by CS after I post that comment 😉 … I will come back to your’s shortly. Thanks. Toss me a key out the window to get back in if I’m booted out! 😈

          Liked by 1 person

        • theancients says:

          lol… I’m keyless Sir.

          Liked by 1 person

        • As are many people here it seems. And I may not only be “keyless” but apparently clueless as well. 😛

          Like

        • FYI… I’m readjusting margins back to the left, down in a new comment for you theancients.

          Like

        • Apologies. Forgot to correct this sentence…

          ..that makes the “list” of non-Christian, non-Judeo-Christian, and pro-Constantine & his bishops sources all the same and unchanged for 1,691 years.” …with…

          …that makes Christian, Judeo-Christian, and pro-Constantine & his bishops works… sources closed, all the same, unchanged for 1,691 years and counting.”

          Thank you. Peace to all. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

        • @ theancients

          Can I use your example of physicians to look at this another way?

          why is it that when you go to the physician you do not ask him to refrain from using his medical knowledge gained from medical texts in order to treat you [ that’s very biased!… a book on geography or one written by an archaeologist should have equally valid medical information… right]

          No, one doesn’t use archaeology or geography to keep updated with current medical practice. However all physicians, at least in the UK, are required to update themselves through CPD:continuing professional development.

          This basically updates medics on subjects they originally learned, but legislation, clinical standards and practice have since changed.

          Because, things do change, and people are unaware of new studies, new guidelines, and current good practice. What was learned 20, 30, 40 years ago is no longer extant in many cases.

          So just as one wouldn’t use geography or archaeology to question a physician’s interpretation of cervical screening, one wouldn’t use medicine to look at religion. One might however use science, history, archaeology, and possibly basic common sense, although the latter is unlikely. After all, the world could not possibly be round could it? Heresy!

          And @ CS and IB:

          Actually, one can’t even discuss laws or morals with one who rejects the bible outright,

          Well, isn’t that what I said in the first place? We can’t have a discussion because Xtians can’t take the bible out of it. Insanity has made my point.

          Liked by 2 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          Then again roughseas, maybe some people actually know the innate difference between a hyena and a human being, and it is not simply one of an extra pair of hands………

          A clue here though, ahem, why you do not keep genealogy records of the snickering four footed creatures.

          Might have something to do with WHOSE image is on the coin. Without a standard, morals change like the tides, eh, not too smart.

          And your morals today? Yep, based on scripture, whether you like it or not.

          Like

        • Then again CS, where do Hindu morals come from? They started before creationists claim the world even began. Confusing huh?

          My morals? Oh no. I believe in equality and human rights. Your bible seems to have some contradictions there. It’s lucky morals do change, so that, for example homosexuals can marry 🙂

          Liked by 2 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          Nope, no contradictions rs, but I do wonder why you are not chastising your friend taboo for being guilty of the very thing you despise: carrying on a so called convo using the scriptures!

          Oh wait I know why. It suits your narrative for deconnery. Sure, talk about the scriptures all you want…….as long as you are mocking them as weak or useless.

          As I said, ‘vain babblings.’

          Like

        • theancients says:

          @ roughseasinthemed,
          [aside: the first time I saw your handle, I actually thought it was in reference to rough times in the emergency room… the med part threw me there]

          To the discussion at hand:
          It’s not called the Practice of Medicine, for no reason… hence the necessity for physicians to avail themselves of current guidelines for continuing practice of their profession.

          It seems to me that Professor Taboo and I are in agreement (he can correct me if I’m wrong), that since the evidence for all sides are the same and as long as the same standards are applied to the NT and to every other single ancient historical document… where’s the issue.

          Alas, the issue is not the evidence, nor the standards applied… the issue lies in the conclusions drawn by those who try to reduce everything to “science” thinking their own personal, philosophical statements are statements of science.

          Bottom line: science is just one discipline in this complex world and is greatly limited… and sadly, a great portion of this limitation is due to the very ones who tout science as the answer to all things.

          Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        @Rough
        @ Taboo

        Excert from https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/higher-education/

        ——The idea was brought forth (in post one) that asking for ‘more’ help to verify God’s word, is a condescending insult to He who is the Word. Mind you, these requests are coming from people who say Adam never lived, Moses was a myth, and Christ, if He lived, was just an ordinary joe. (perish the thought) New findings are sought to perpetuate the alleged instability of scripture.

        Maybe we should call on the dignitaries of higher education for the correct answers on the existence of God and credibility of His word. Meanwhile, ‘Higher education’ encourages the accusation of ‘weakness’ in the text, while men run to us and say: ‘defend the scriptures!’

        God’s word needs no defense.

        Why do I say this?

        It IS the defense——

        As you can see, a few years of unbelieving seminary is a mere pittance compared to thousands of years of collected worn out hammers, all useless against the claims of scripture, which is the eternal anvil of truth.

        Even the devil himself is not so stupid to argue against scripture; no his interests are a bit more subtle. But a debate? Ha, there is no argument with that which is irrefutable. The sensible thing is to agree with the obvious starting with a Creator. Common sense 101.

        Like

        • Hello CS. Hope today finds you & yours well. 🙂

          Since the only two questions you asked in your comment-reply were to yourself, that doesn’t make for productive dialogue. But seeing this is indeed your personal WordPress blog, you certainly can do as you choose. Communication (certainly positive civil understanding) is accomplished by two-way flows. In other words, through silent polite listening or reading then dignified questions to a speaker/writer, then reverse the process and the prior speaker becomes the silent polite listener until speaker is finished sharing and answering. However, judging by the lack of genuine questions for ME… you don’t seem interested in listening or understanding a different viewpoint. That’s fine. That is your personal right. Therefore, I’ll share my single view-point(s) as one in 7.4 billion on this wonderful planet, as you have CS, if I may Sir.

          I find that being born in and living in a nation with such expansive individual freedoms — i.e. freedoms of speech, freedoms of the press, freedom to vote, freedom to travel, freedom of education (public or private), freedom for a democratic government (though debateable today 😛 )…and one of the most critical (and sometimes polarizing) freedoms: freedom of religion. CS…it is your right to express your opinions, your beliefs equally along with mine and all other U.S. citizens. And I respect your right to do so as you have.

          To close my own right for a one-way dialogue — granted on YOUR blog you control — there are very good, very understandable, very compelling reasons WHY Christianity is NOT the most common religion in the world after almost 20-centuries of existence. It is not becoming (will not become?) the largest for additional good, understandable, compelling reasons; the biggest being there are some 33,000+ various denominations within the Christian faith, many of which calling the others heretical. One plausible reason for the faith’s severe fragmentation is indeed its own fallible New Testament. This isn’t just my own personal opinion. That is the general opinion of the majority of the world’s population, past and present. I actually find this planet’s neverending diversity a wonderful invigorating existence, and that indisputable condition within this planet’s plethora of religions! I embrace it. And it most definitely bodes well toward Pluralism not Monism. The Natural world as well as the Cosmos both confirm this condition! 🙂 Ahh, but I’ve wondered off too far from the crux of my initial suggestion above to Roughseas above and Christians here. I’ll hop off the hamster wheel, again.

          Those questions above still stand unaddressed.

          Thank you CS for allowing my participation on this subject. Best regards to you. ❤

          P.S. and out of respect here for readers/watchers, I will be much busier come Sunday afternoon and unable to respond in a timely fashion, that is if CS continues to allow me here. Peace for all.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          @taboo

          Short and sweet: Stuff and nonsense.
          33,000 denominations? Is that all? Seems that’s a bunch of people trying to get it right.

          But your charge of ‘questions’ asked to oneself? Uh, no, they are not trap questions asked by atheists to generate endless discussions with no answers; ‘Where were you in the beginning when God created the stars?’ is a question designed to put you, (and me) in our place.

          As to the ‘general opinion…………’ about this or that, sorry, if you read the posts ‘higher education’ and ‘links of knowledge,’ you would know I do not care if a thousand ‘scholars’ said Moses never lived. as I would cite a thousand uninformed men, or a thousand liars. God’s word needs no defense. And for what its worth, there are many other sites who welcome the tales of the decon as a cloak for promoting godlessness.

          I prefer the word discernment and act accordingly.
          .

          Liked by 2 people

        • Then I bid you well CS and genuinely hope your Christ’s love and compassion dominate more your walk of faith.

          Respectfully, Prof T ❤

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          @Pt

          I always accept God’s blessing from others, even from non believers. Tkx.

          I will say though it is not easy for Christ’s love and compassion to dominate…………but press on we must.

          Liked by 1 person

        • @ CS

          Go get ’em tiger. 😉

          Like

  8. Pingback: Best seller! Read the bible! | Clouds moving in

  9. @ theancients —

    “As mentioned to roughseasmed I believe we’re in agreement that all legitimate sources should be encouraged and given equal consideration. [Reality dictates this is not the issue – …”

    Actually, I’m not in total agreement. The word “reality” is just too subjective, is it not? I certainly do feel that the bigger and more diverse the think-tank of Nobel-Prize-level-nominee intellects, the better.

    “I’ve never been to seminary, but as an institution of higher learning, I imagine they did a disservice by disallowing access to equal legitimate sources (ie. sources that utilize the same evidences & same standards of verification)”

    Well, that wasn’t exactly the case. They emphasized MORE the importance of the Devil’s cunning tricks (paranoia?) and didn’t feel anything beyond the very well-known unheretical (tiny lensed) pro-Christian sources to be totally sufficient… to the point that anyone bringing up non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Constantinian-Roman sources, no matter their weight, was beguiled by the Devil. Not unlike CS’s approach to me. 🙂

    Despite their closed-mindedness or apathy to me, in total faith I went out “into the wilderness” on my own “WITH GOD” to investigate. I found there are indeed a variety of valid compelling non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Constantinian-Roman sources that survived Constantine’s Legions burnings and witch-hunts! With time, more are being and will be discovered. That’s simply the beauty of evolving progress of humanity and its collective intellect.

    “I defer to my Lord here: You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want.”

    A good quote Sir. Mmmm, was wondering when Special Revelation (versus General Revelation) would come into the discussion. Happy you brought it up theancients. Now, though that quote/passage was directed to traditional Jews, Pharisees, etc, and their Tanakh, I and many other neutral spectators DID NOT, do not come from traditional Jewish backgrounds, much less knowledgeable of the Tanakh. So unfortunately your quote cannot apply to me and “a forest or a tree”. And this is where I must explain General Revelation and Special Revelation; it is critical for your point theancients as well as mine.

    In the majority or common theology of Christian theologians and apologists, most agree that God speaks to His people 3 different ways: 1) thru empirical Natural order/design around us…i.e. General revelation available for all to see (Romans 1:19-20), 2) miracles, or supernatural paranormal events, and 3) Scripture, or the Canonical Bible for our discussion here (for #2 and #3, see Hebrews 1:1-2).

    To a neutral spectator or skeptic today theancients, WHICH of the three do you think would carry the long-term impact, the most tangible permanent BANG for the buck in an ever changing world…for eventual conversion/salvation? Proving General Revelation is impossible today for the simple fact that the Natural world consistently exhibits neverending overwhelming diversity, change, and paradox. X-out #1. Miracles, or the supernatural, are far too subjective, individualized unique experiences which have not and can never be globally standardized. This leaves Scripture — the one primary foundation Christian theologians & apologists can hope to rely on. If you can show me otherwise theancients, I am all eyes/ears Sir. 🙂

    “Do you honestly believe knowing the details of Jesus’ whereabouts in His early years will change the NT narrative. Will it change who Jesus is and your relationship with Him… Would it change His ultimate mission.”

    Yes, those years absolutely would…and they have. To your following question, absolutely changes everything. And for the last question, yes, it changes EVERYTHING about “his ultimate mission“. The some 40+ non-canonical texts found & studies the last several decades most definitely redefine everything the pro-Constantinian-Roman bishops & early Church Fathers (soon Roman Catholic Church) recorded about Yeshua, or more accurately the original and last Jesus-Movement and the Jerusalem Council… versus the Roman version of texts and theology about Yeshua.

    But in all sincerity theancients (and for anyone else reading)… don’t take my words here as truthy (insane? LOL), venture outside the box yourselves, in Faith and find out for yourselves. And if you choose not to… that’s fine with me as well. 🙂

    “I believe you already know this: the other sources say very little in comparison to Christian/Jewish sources.”

    Yes I do, and that’s a HUGE inference, i.e. according to Roman records, the Messiah-Movement was barely a fledging social-welfare movement in the empire that Emperor Constantine catalyzed & hijacked… and no, secular sources speak implicitly and explicitely quite a lot. As Roughseas was trying to convey, over time more evidence is discovered. More relevant compelling philology and linguistics are revealing and have revealed varied pictures and context of 1st century CE Jerusalem and the Levant VERY RELEVANT and very compelling… of course (respectfully) in my opinion and the better part of the world’s opinion too; reference my previous comment regarding Christianity’s relative “ranking” in the world today after 1,961 years along with its 33,000+ denominations/divisions. That has to carry some weight; the majority of human brains on this planet cannot all be morons.

    To close, I’m not necessarily trying to deconvert you theancients, or even CS. What I am suggesting is to at least MEET the secular world, its data-finds, and its civil dialogue humbly halfway, with as much strong “faith” as the Apostles had, especially Saul! Being ultra-pious does little good and talking only “one language” (Scripture), is honestly incongruent with Yeshua’s passion to be mostly among the sinners, the rejects, and the lepers.

    Nonetheless, I have enjoyed our brief discussion theancients, and wish you best regards again Sir. ❤

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      Something for you to chew on taboo-

      Try leaving out the implication that ‘secular’sources have equal footing with scripture.

      No body is buying that stale argument here except the godless. Fair speeches are irrelevant to the truth of scripture.

      There is NO meeting half way, as clever and liberal as it sounds.

      ‘Forever oh Lord thy word is settled in heaven…………..’

      ‘They went out from us, and they were not of us………………’

      ‘From their own mouths will they speak perverse things to draw away disciples after themselves……….’

      Sound familiar?

      Like

    • theancients says:

      @ Professor Taboo,

      It seems like your feelings of your school’s apathy etc. was mostly in your head because you say they didn’t disallow other sources, but emphasized one source over the other. 😛

      [This is one ex. of the sinister side to “scientists/so-called esteemed intellectuals” making personal declarations as statements of science… ex. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner makes statements such as this: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” in reference to one race of people.]
      As I said, the issue is not the evidence, nor the equality of standards. The real issue is those who want the conclusions of the findings to support their own personal philosophies. In essence, they want to re-write history.
      In this regard, I/believers have nothing to fear. Scripture is settled – it doesn’t change. God who establishes the end from the beginning is not looking at us deeply surprised.

      Interestingly, your 2nd to last paragraph: “Being ultra-pious does little good and talking only “one language” (Scripture), is honestly incongruent with Yeshua’s passion to be mostly among the sinners, the rejects, and the lepers” reflects the above words of my Lord and my short sermon.
      How? – because it always comes back to being relational…establishing relationships. We relate to people where they’re at [not an easy thing, and definitely a process that continually refines us into His perfect image].

      If I wish to know you and all I did was purchase & read a book written by those who know you best, and a few other books by those who’ve heard about you; yet I never tried to establish a relationship with you in order to know you personally. At the end of the day, I only know about you, I don’t know you.
      So, you see, in searching the Scriptures, we know about Jesus [Scripture testifies of Him]… but until we come to Him – in person – & establish a personal relationship with Him, we will & can never know Him.

      Which leads to my next point. I don’t believe in de-conversion. God is a person, not an idea. A person is real and exists; an idea is not a real, existing, dependable being.
      [God is either real (ie. one knows Him and trusts Him) or He’s an idea (ie. one has thoughts/ideas/feelings about who they think God is), but He can never be both real and an idea].
      Faith is placed in a person – a real, living, and existing being who we find worthy of our trust.
      Christ Jesus is a real person. God is a real person. The two cannot be separated. Christ Jesus is not an idea. Love exists between beings. God IS love. He’s a real being.

      This is not to start another discussion (no time)… but to say, I’m not worried about being ‘de-converted’… because God is a reality for me… a real being just as you are… you are not an idea… you exist! 🙂

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, a blessed day to you.
      Shalom.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ theancients

        I have to say that during this very brief discourse with you theancients, you are easier than most Xian-Fundamentalists or hardline-Believers to speak with. Partly because of your courtesy, treatment, and word-structure… at least to me. I have MANY Xian colleagues and close Xian friends (college & seminary) like you, where we are still in regular contact. We all know where each other stands spiritually and kindly respect that. But we still manage to laugh more than we disagree. I greatly appreciate your obvious patience and thoughtfulness toward me and I’m SURE that if we met in-person I’d like you and would be happy to call you a friend. For that, I graciously applaud you. Thank you Sir. Now for my last comment about all of this — being Sunday morning my schedule gets crazy busy later. :/

        “If I wish to know you and all I did was purchase & read a book written by those who know you best, and a few other books by those who’ve heard about you; yet I never tried to establish a relationship with you in order to know you personally. At the end of the day, I only know about you, I don’t know you. So, you see, in searching the Scriptures, we know about Jesus [Scripture testifies of Him]… but until we come to Him – in person – & establish a personal relationship with Him, we will & can never know Him.”

        Mmmm…”relational” indeed! And that relationship takes many days, weeks, months, mental & emotional investment, and most of all Faith in Your God and His omniscent omnipotent abilities. Sadly, the majority of “Christ-followers” I’ve encountered here and abroad during my 3 missions trips, do not or can not make such initial or sustained investments in the trenches, i.e. with the sinners, the rejects, the lepers. In a nation of such EXTREME WEALTH as the U.S., a neutral or skeptic of Christianity visiting state-side would clearly see MASSIVE gaudy mega-stadium-auditoriums surrounded by 3-4 football-sized parking lots with vehicles that cost at least $50,000 or more… while the socio-economic GAP widens and widens and widens, crime in impoverished neighborhoods continue or rise, children here go malnourished or under-nourished, soup kitchens BARELY stay open much less stocked, and enough Volunteers are few and far between. But not at or inside the 3 or 450,000 U.S. registered churches/temples/synogogues (many on every block) that grow and grow in material opulence. Sadly theancients, this is due to the appalling increased popularity of Dominion and Prosperity theologies. And granted, due to time-constraints I’m grossly oversimplifying the data and reality here in America. So…

        Where is and has the relational investment of Christ/God from His People/Chosen ones now and for the last 6 decades? 😦

        Though your words/claims theancients might sound true, even compellingly convincing — and I know Scripture inside-n-out and I simply witness Christ’s Church on Earth here in the U.S. — and I just don’t see the “relational” investments & growth you speak about. My personal experiences of this were nauseatingly confirmed from 1989 up to today. I truly wish I were wrong Sir, but today’s evidence disagrees and I think primarily they do because of (arrogant?) piousness both inside the churches and on websites like this one.

        Now, if you’re concentrating purely on the individual intimate experiences (relationship?) with/of God/Yeshua, then that is truly an entirely DIFFERENT discussion — as I alluded to in my previous comment regarding Revelations — and thought they cannot be qualified on a global standard, that does not necessarily invalidate them. This includes YOURS Sir. I won’t dare go there; only your “fruit” or “works” bear witness to your soul. And frankly, it’s none of my business. 🙂

        “Which leads to my next point. I don’t believe in de-conversion. God is a person, not an idea. A person is real and exists; an idea is not a real, existing, dependable being.
        [God is either real (ie. one knows Him and trusts Him) or He’s an idea (ie. one has thoughts/ideas/feelings about who they think God is), but He can never be both real and an idea].”

        Well said Sir. I have no qualms with that.

        “Faith is placed in a person – a real, living, and existing being who we find worthy of our trust. Christ Jesus is a real person. God is a real person. The two cannot be separated. Christ Jesus is not an idea. Love exists between beings. God IS love. He’s a real being.”

        Again, no qualms here. Though faith is easily understood from canonical Scripture, once again, its embodiment in Christ’s Bride (as a whole OR from the 33,000+ denominations just in Protestantism!) is a whole-nother can of worms and Pandora’s Box. :0

        “This is not to start another discussion (no time)… but to say, I’m not worried about being ‘de-converted’… because God is a reality for me… a real being just as you are… you are not an idea… you exist! :)”

        Your granite-marbled rock Faith theancients, will serve you well in the coming days and years. I genuinely wish you the best and the rewards expected. ❤

        “Thanks for sharing your thoughts, a blessed day to you.”

        I’ve actaully enjoyed our very brief (too brief?) discourse as well. Thank you. I doubt I will get the last word(s) here, but nevertheless, I would be pleased if someday you and I met in-person theancients! I think I’d like that. 😉

        Universal peace to you and all.

        Liked by 2 people

        • ColorStorm says:

          I’ve enjoyed ‘the ancients ‘as well taboo, as his logic is sound.

          For you now. Out of the gate, without saying one word to me HERE, and having never been to this site, you pompously remarked that you may or may not get back for a month or so…………..as TIME is pressing more important matters.

          Yet you have shown you have nothing but time to cast aspersion upon the scriptures.

          If you would have taken the time to read other posts perhaps, you would have seen that I have zero interest in the planting of seeds of ‘deconversion’ at this site. For this there is no apology.

          And I also have little respect for any man who holds in contempt the God of heaven for the acts of miscreants on earth.

          Stuff and nonsense.

          Like

        • CS…I will try again for the last time to depart from you with some common grace as you allude to in your About-this-blog-Comments-policy page. You and anyone else are more than welcome to ignore me, silently is the more graceful and impressive. I have not and will no longer read any of your comments to me. You are MORE THAN WELCOME to delete all of my comments — no qualms with your tiny Kingdom’s oppression here — big fish in tiny pond. Again, and for the final time, I bid you a mutual Ado and wellness. ❤

          Go get ’em tiger.

          Liked by 2 people

        • theancients says:

          @ Professor Taboo,

          Thanks for being so gracious.
          I agree with your analysis and some of your observations regarding Churches in the West. I know for a fact there are people who risk their lives daily working in areas no one else wants to go to. I think because the focus is usually on mega-style-churches; smaller ones that are actually disciplining nations are never heard of [they build & run schools, clinics, disaster relief, food and farm programs, build houses, etc. The reality is a lot gets done, but by a relative few (relative compared to entire population professing to be Christian); so definitely one can imagine how much could get done if many more were being “relational” – because in reality it’s through relating to people that we are able to feel & have compassion for them; in essence love them].

          I think the mistake preachers/teachers made is believing the US & the West in general was already a “discipled” nation. It takes discipline and commitment, and my words are more for me, than anyone else.
          The reality is, I am only now growing into really understanding what it truly means to be a disciple of Christ compared to what I knew before (a “normal comfortable” Christian life). Perhaps it was taught, but no one was paying attention; but I truly believe the Christians in the West will be greatly transformed because circumstances will make it necessary. This doesn’t mean lots of people will be changed… for some reason, it has always been only a relative few who will make the commitment and stick to it.
          In the end we’re all stewards and must account to the manager what we accomplished during our time of stewardship.

          I’ll name drop one of my mentors here: I recall David Hogan having a similar critique as you, he decided to be different. He certainly is. When you have the time, check out what he and his team does. One of his sayings I really like is: “Yes, I know you would have done it better/differently, but you weren’t there.”

          Usually when I say the things that these guys are doing, many don’t believe. Too many churches are asleep – asleep to the reality of the Might & Power of the God we say we serve. I think affluence can do that… it’s not 100% responsible, but mostly.

          I also know there are ordinary people including bloggers who serve in donation centers etc. I definitely don’t think I’m doing enough, and I keep looking at the image that’s reflected back at me, and try to make changes accordingly.

          It was my pleasure speaking to you as well Professor Taboo; who knows, we just may meet one day… until then, I’ll drop by ‘unannounced’ at your blog 🙂
          A great week to you… Shalom.

          Liked by 1 person

        • It is refreshing indeed theancients to have an adult discussion about anything under the Sun or Moon. Here these last 2-3 days, it has been unusually pleasant with you. Thank you.

          I will definitely go check-out David Hogan — after all, it’s only fair, right? 😉

          I do hope we cross paths. Peace to you Sir.

          Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        @ancients
        @roughseas

        Hope you don’t mind the heads up, but your comment ‘ancients,’ was the propeller for a post. Thought you may like to know, and probably rs would like you to know.

        Btw, rs, ancients did raise a fine point about not knowing the content of something, then somehow suggesting one is qualified to summarily dismiss it. just sayin.

        https://cloudsmovingin.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/biblical-inerrancy/#comment-9527

        Like

  10. ColorStorm says:

    No taboo,
    Decons to christianity have a mission, I am well aware of the conversations; for God’s sake, read the blogs of they in your own circles.

    And I have no interest in the promotion of godlessness.

    Some of the vilest commentary springs from the land of the decon; tis a fact.

    Btw, unbelievers and decons are not cut from the same cloth, perhaps you do not know this, but some people actually use that tool called discernment.

    Like

  11. Pingback: WHY LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH – Citizen Tom

  12. Powerful post. Unfortunately, even if the writer you address reads your post, he or she will not understand your words. He does not realize that he has placed his trust only in himself. Because he has done so,, his eyes and ears are sealed and he no longer can discern what is evident all about him. In my opinion, he is lost and walking in darkness on his path in life. He will remain that way until they see the Light and place their trust in their Creator.

    Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. (Proverb 3:5-6)

    Pray for him.

    Regards and goodwill blogging..

    Like

  13. Pingback: Left Over Articles (1-16-2015) – My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s